NCEO StateLinks

Forty states participated in the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) teleconference on December 18th. It focused on how states are using data for improving achievement scores for students with disabilities. This call was the first teleconference exploring the leadership role of state departments of education in ensuring students with disabilities achieve at high levels in the grade-level curriculum.

Eileen Ahearn from the National Association of State Directors of Special Education framed the discussion for the calls on the topic. Her brief overview of the history of curriculum for students with disabilities pointed to the difficulty of the shift from "separate curriculum" for some students to a standards-based curriculum for all students. A summary of Dr. Ahearn’s overview is provided here to serve as a discussion guide for partners in special education, curriculum, assessment, and accountability roles.

Most people in education are aware of the development of special education. The exclusion of students with disabilities from public schools was ended by legislation, mainly Public Law 94-142, now reauthorized as IDEA. Although access was achieved, some began to ask, "Access to what?" P.L. 94-142 required identification of students served by specific disability and documentation of the specific services to be provided. Accountability for funds fostered emphasis on separate delivery to "prove" that programs and services were delivered to eligible children.

The "treatment model" prevailed in the early years of IDEA—special education programs and services were designed to "correct" or "cure" the child’s disability:

• Separate curricula were common in special education classrooms and resource rooms.

• The curriculum of the child’s grade was not considered essential to special education program and services.

• Heavy emphasis on "therapies" encouraged a medical model approach for special education.

The educational reform movement of the 1980s and early 1990s began what is referred to as the "standards movement" in education.

• Early efforts had very little involvement of special educators.

• The specification of grade-level standards was the focus of this reform and student assessments were required to demonstrate academic achievement.

• Students with disabilities were "excused" from the new type of accountability that was part of the early standards movement.

The 1997 IDEA reauthorization codified the basis of the current wave of educational reform for students with disabilities. It required access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of students with disabilities in all state and district assessments.

It took a few years for these concepts to begin to become operational.

• NCLB incorporated those concepts in the new emphasis on grade-level academic standards and measuring every student’s achievement of grade level standards by assessments that were to be reported to the public.

• No students were exempted from these requirements.

• Some variations are allowed for the small number of students with the most severe cognitive disabilities and, most recently, for other students who need modifications because they are not expected to be able to achieve grade-level standards within one school year (the 1% and 2% rules).

Dr. Ahearn noted that we are still struggling with the "right" way to include students with disabilities in the educational system:

• We have "people first" language in the term "students with disabilities," but we do not necessarily identify these students as members of a general education grade first.

• Until recently, we have overemphasized the "special" in special education and neglected the "education" part by depriving students with disabilities of access to instruction based on state standards.

• We need to find successful ways for special education teachers, content experts including regular classroom teachers, and assessment specialists to work together to provide standards-based instruction for students with disabilities and to measure the academic progress of these students.

• What we need to do is NOT easy—it requires a refocus on academic achievement for ALL students, and this is a new way of thinking for many who work with students with disabilities.

For this to occur at the local level requires day to day collaboration and leadership at the state level across the assessment, accountability, special education, and curriculum offices. Policies, guidelines, training, and monitoring must provide an aligned, coherent, and focused approach to ensuring that all students have effective instruction in the grade level content, and that all students have the instructional supports and services to achieve at high levels in spite of barriers of disability or historical expectations.

Presenters on the call included Judith Higgins Moening, from North East I.S.D., San Antonio, Texas; Jim Cantor, Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum, Snowline Joint Unified School District, Phelan, CA; and Mary Hudler, Director of Special Education Division, and Deb Sigman, Director of Standards and Assessment Division, both at the California Department of Education. Presenters materials are posted at www.nceo.info/Teleconferences/tele15/.

The next NCEO teleconference will be in the late winter and will feature a panel of state staff working to provide cross-disciplinary leadership to ensure students with disabilities are included in the benefits of standards-based reform.

 A new report presents the results of a survey conducted to provide an update on state policies for graduation requirements and diploma options. Survey questions focused on state requirements for students with and without disabilities, the intended and non-intended consequences of requiring students to pass exit exams to receive a standard diploma, and the use of single and multiple diploma options nationally.

The authors noted that while there is a trend toward fewer diploma options, there is an increase in states allowing IEP teams to discuss modification or changes, from 13 states in 2002 to 32 states currently. The authors also noted a change in the number of states that allowed exceptions to regular graduation requirements (n=5) down to three states making no allowances with only one state from a previous report continuing this practice. In those states with exit exams, states did report options for students who did not pass the exams, including scoring options and testing options.

Diploma options and high stakes tests are continuing challenges for the inclusion of students with disabilities. For a discussion of additional trends and recommendations, please see the report Revisiting Graduation Requirements and Diploma Options for Youth with Disabilities: A National Study. The report can be found at www.nceo.info/OnlinePubs/Tech49/.

  Top of page